On "Clutch"
I disagree with much of the Post-Gazette's long new article about "clutch," but it's nonetheless pretty illuminating. The article begins with an explanation of the position, held by many sabermetric types, that "clutch hitting" is a skill that's so minor that it easily gets buried under other factors, like the skills of the players involved and natural variation in performance. It's a pretty fair description of the position that many take, except that I don't know any baseball fan who has seriously argued that Michael Jordan or John Elway weren't clutch.
The Post-Gazette then presents another side of the debate, quoting a number of players and former players who believe that clutch hitting is an important skill. The funniest quote comes from Jim Colborn:
He cited, from his playing days, Joe Rudi, a career .264 hitter who elevated his level every postseason for the Athletics. [NOTE: Since I wrote this article, the Post-Gazette's sentence has changed.]
"Believe me: For all the great players in that lineup, Joe Rudi was not the one you wanted to face. He just had a knack."
Rudi played in the postseason every year from 1971 to 1975, and he posted a career postseason line of .264/.329/.386, giving him a .713 OPS. That's lower than his regular-season OPS for every one of those years except 1971 and much lower than his regular-season OPSes in 1972, 1974 and 1975. It's true that a lot of Rudi's clutch reputation is based on his defense, but I don't think anyone denies that clutch defense exists. In fact, I don't know of anyone who has studied it. The debate about clutch being a skill in baseball has focused almost exclusively on hitting, because that's the only area where sabermetricians are making counterintuitive claims. And at least as far as Rudi's hitting is concerned, the notion that he "elevated his level every postseason" is flat wrong. That Rudi is the first player who comes to Colborn's mind is telling, I think.
You may think that it's silly of me to argue this point with Pirates players and coaches, but it isn't, because a lot of their decisions are apparently based on some pretty ridiculous thinking about clutch hitting. The Post-Gazette's description of Jim Tracy's position is worth quoting at length:
Tracy's view is reflected in how he forms his lineup, bucking the modern thinking that the highest on-base percentage players should be stacked at the top. Instead, he favors the more traditional approach of getting the runner on, moving him along and getting a "big" hit.
"Isn't that what makes teams good?" Tracy said when asked about his value of clutch. "It's what separates you from the pack, your ability to take the big at-bat. You don't expect somebody to hit 1.000 with runners in scoring position, but you have to get your share of hits in those situations. Look at the upper echelon of clubs, and that's what you look for. And if we can get to that point, we've got a chance to become a pretty decent team."
Got that? The Pirates' lineups and offensive strategy are based on ideas about "clutch"-ness for which there is very little evidence. Jack Wilson hits second either because he's good at moving runners over or because he delivers in clutch situations.
Well, with the excellent and (apparently) clutch-tacular Freddy Sanchez hitting third most of last year, the Pirates still finished 17th in the majors in runs scored from the leadoff position and 25th in runs scored from the #2 slot. Why? Because, #$(%*&-it, they finished 28th in the majors in OBP from each of the first two spots in their order. It simply will not do to put a speed demon in the leadoff spot and Wilson in the #2 spot, and then to hope that Sanchez will come through in the rare instances in which one of those players actually gets on base. It doesn't work. We know it doesn't work. But Tracy would rather continue to cling to this absurd belief about the way games are won than get real about the situation and get Wilson's sorry act out of the #2 spot.
I've said this before, and I'll say it again: the Pirates finished 29th in the majors in runs scored in 2006. They finished dead last in OPS. In 2005 they finished 28th in runs scored and 24th in OPS. In 2004 the Pirates were 27th in runs scored and 26th in OPS. And this year, they're 28th in runs scored and 25th in OPS.
There's a very obvious pattern here, and if Jim Tracy hasn't figured it out despite being with the organization for well over a year, he shouldn't be running a Dustbuster, let alone a professional baseball team. "Big hits" are not the problem. A lack of offensive talent is the problem.
This matters. It matters because I have to watch Wilson try to hit four or five times a game instead of three or four. And it matters because, if you think that your team's problem is its failure to capitalize on its chances rather than the inadequacy of its players, you misdiagnose your problems. You run the risk of getting too complacent and waiting too long for bad players to start executing in key situations, when in fact the problem is not that they don't hit well enough in key situations, but that they're simply bad players.
0 recs |
32 comments
Comments
charlie
by patthatt on Apr 24, 2007 1:55 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Colborn
Isn't that just another way of saying those same players lack focus most of the time?
And somehow that's supposed to be a GOOD thing?
by sisyphus on Apr 24, 2007 5:09 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Tracy
by WTM on Apr 24, 2007 7:51 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Missing one point...
In the article it talks about Jeter's miniscule average in a series, but he still delivered a key home run when it really mattered (to win a game).
It's quite possible that Rudi's composite line might be mediocre (or worse), but what few hits that he got could have come in key situations.
This is why RISP is also a misleading/incomplete stat in this argument. There's a big difference between having 2 runners on with 2 outs in the first inning versus the same 2 runners on with 2 outs in the bottom of the 9th and the team behind a run.
To me, getting a hit in the 1st inning is nice, but getting a hit in the 9th is "clutch".
I think that the entire concept is more perception than reality. I think that the concept of "choke" is much firmer than clutch. Great players tend to maintain their focus at all times, meaning they're going to come through at an above-average rate in key situations because they're above-average talents. There's no such thing as "110% focus or effort". However, there is a such thing as "50% focus/effort", which would be a choker... someone who can't handle the pressure situations.
by OmarMoreno18 on Apr 24, 2007 9:27 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
OK
Fine, but the whole argument becomes absurd if you pursue that argument. Rudi's postseason lines were worse than his regular season lines. So if he did well in really important postseason opportunities (however you'd care to define them), that means he did really, really poorly in other postseason opportunities. Which makes the notion that he's clutch pretty strange to me - what, all those opportunities in first and second innings of postseason games weren't important enough for him to come through?
by Charlie on Apr 24, 2007 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jeter
by whygavs on Apr 24, 2007 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Holy Grail
Then you should have no trouble showing that with statistics, and your book will sell a ton of copies.
"Great players tend to maintain their focus at all times, meaning they're going to come through at an above-average rate in key situations because they're above-average talents."
In 89 lifetime post-season at bats, Willie Mays hit .247 with 1 home run and an OPS of .660. Is there something wrong with your theory, or is Willie Mays not a great player?
"It's quite possible that Rudi's composite line might be mediocre (or worse), but what few hits that he got could have come in key situations."
"This is why RISP is also a misleading/incomplete stat in this argument. There's a big difference between having 2 runners on with 2 outs in the first inning versus the same 2 runners on with 2 outs in the bottom of the 9th and the team behind a run."
During his career Rudi hit WORSE late in close games than he did the rest of the time. In fact, he hit best when his team was behind or ahead by more than 4 runs.
by sisyphus on Apr 25, 2007 8:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes Virginia, there is clutch
... and speaking of childhood, I was a wee lad of 8 or 9 when Joe Rudi was climbing walls and making catches that I can still see in my mind. I honestly think it was only two catches, but it may as well have been 10. Joe Rudi would be long forgotten by just about everyone if not for those catches, and perhaps for hitting the go-ahead HR in the series clincher in 1974. Why do we remember Joe Rudi, if not for his postseason performance?
I don't know what you're railing against sisyphus (I mean, where are you going with "holy grail"?). Clutch may not be tangible or measureable or a skill or whatever. So it's a perception, so what? I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it. Maybe clutch players are a myth, but clutch plays are not.
by azibuck on Apr 25, 2007 9:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Holy Grail II
No Indiana Jones wisecracks, lol.
Clutch plays definitely exist. Does clutch performance exist as a skill? If it does, nobody has been able to show it.
by sisyphus on Apr 25, 2007 6:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is weird
by bucdaddy on Apr 24, 2007 10:39 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think the issue is
by Charlie on Apr 24, 2007 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
9th inning hit vs. 1st inning hit
"This is why RISP is also a misleading/incomplete stat in this argument. There's a big difference between having 2 runners on with 2 outs in the first inning versus the same 2 runners on with 2 outs in the bottom of the 9th and the team behind a run."
Not sure I follow here. If the dude had made the hit in the first inning with 2 runners on and two out, wouldn't the team be up by one (or at least tied) rather than down by one?
I can see the emotional lure of the 9th inning comeback, but isn't the first inning run really just as valuable (maybe moreso if the confidence of being ahead going into the 9th rather than behind is considered)?
by SteveG on Apr 24, 2007 10:41 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Depends on what you mean
by matskralc on Apr 24, 2007 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Clarification...
I don't think 1st inning pressure is going to affect too many players, whereas late inning pressure with the game on the line is a whole different beast.
During this "crunch time" (another cliche for the thread <g>) I don't think the great become greater... rather, the weaker of mind and heart get exposed ("choke").
by OmarMoreno18 on Apr 24, 2007 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK, that one got through ...
by bucdaddy on Apr 24, 2007 10:43 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Jordan and Elway
by hisjazziness on Apr 24, 2007 10:51 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
yeah
by matskralc on Apr 24, 2007 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely...
The greatest players in all sports are the ones on the field/court/ice when it matters most. So they have the greatest opportunity to succeed and create that Sportscenter highlight victory. The failures are quickly forgotten, which creates an illusion of "clutchness".
One could also argue about guys like Elway that if they were truly great, why would they need to come back in the last 2 minutes to steal victory out of the jaws of defeat? Shouldn't they have dominated all game, making the "clutch" comeback unnecessary? But that's a story for another day...
by OmarMoreno18 on Apr 24, 2007 12:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ugh, Elway
The answer to the question is about former Stanford QBs is Jim Plunkett.
by clementeinright on Apr 25, 2007 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nothing to do with anything
And Elway may not have played well in the Super Bowls, but a pretty average Denver team went to three directly because of him. He elevated them, in some cases carried them on his back, alone.
Here's a trivia question for you: How many Broncos were named to the All-Decade team of the 1980's? Now how many played for the Giants, Redskins and 49ers?
Answers: 1 (Rick Upchurch) and 14.
by azibuck on Apr 25, 2007 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Elway
But I do take exception to saying Elway was smart for forcing a trade from the Colts, who as you say, were "run extremely poorly in the '80s" to a team that he had to carry on his back, nearly alone. Could it have been much worse in Baltimore/Indy? I mean how smart were the Broncos to have a marquee QB and not get him any sort of offensive talent?
Those decade teams are pretty interesting (http://www.nfl.com/history/legends/1980s). Upchurch's best seasons were in the 1970s and he is listed as a "kick returner" as opposed to a "punt returner". Yet, Upchurch didn't return a single kickoff in the 1980s (http://www.databasefootball.com/players/playerpage.htm?ilkid=UPCHURIC01).
Thanks for the discussion and I'll try to stay on topic.
by clementeinright on Apr 26, 2007 8:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
agreed
by bryanzane on Apr 24, 2007 12:09 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I am also gratified
They present a ton of numbers that tell you clutch is miniscule, and the equally-weighted counterargument uses almost nothing besides anecdotal evidence. That tells you something right there.
And I love, LOVE, this paragraph:
"Tracy's view is reflected in how he forms his lineup, bucking the modern thinking that the highest on-base percentage players should be stacked at the top. Instead, he favors the more traditional approach of getting the runner on, moving him along and getting a "big" hit."
If only for this excerpt:
"...bucking the modern thinking that the highest OBP players should be at the top. Instead, he favors the approach of getting the runner on..."
If I were an editor I have to say I would have blown the whistle on that one.
And re: early vs. late inning situations. While a player's "clutchness" can certainly be measured better in a late game situation, the value of his contribution should not be overly stressed. If A-Rod hits a three-run home run in the second and Jeter hits a walk-off single, A-Rod contributed more to that win, clutch or not. Therefore, he's still a more valuable player to have on your team, even if he doesn't hit in the ninth.
by Carnival Matleuse on Apr 24, 2007 3:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Good comments...
I understand your point on early vs. late inning situations. But if we're talking about "clutch" we have to be limiting the discussion to specific high-pressure, game-critical situations. Otherwise, anything can be referred to as clutch. I consider a 1st inning HR as "production"... always welcome and equally useful regardless of inning or circumstance. A dinger is (at least) one run on the board, periood.
"Clutch" would be producing under the most stressful of situations... you could have a hitter that's unproductive overall in a series but gets a huge clutch hit to win a game. My guess is the Joe Rudi example would fall into this category, or Jeter's referenced series.
Again, I don't buy into clutch performers, it's a faulty perception. But I do believe there are chokers... Barry Lamar comes to mind...
by OmarMoreno18 on Apr 24, 2007 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bonds
Your statement concerning Bonds is a prime example that "clutchness" exists only in the mind of the observer.
by sisyphus on Apr 25, 2007 8:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You can't be serious
by azibuck on Apr 25, 2007 9:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
here's a team of REALLY 'clutch' players!
but seriously, when was the last time you looked at a Pirates lineup and said to yourself, "yeah, that's logical"? I think there was a brief period in the late '90s, when Kevin Young was at his prime but before someone decided that Jason Kendall was a leadoff hitter... however, I might have been dreaming. if not then, you might have to go back to one of Jim Leyland's early 1990s lineups....
by humbucker on Apr 24, 2007 3:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Not sure what you're getting at...
by matskralc on Apr 24, 2007 10:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kendall
by sisyphus on Apr 25, 2007 8:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I should have checked baseball-reference.com first
by humbucker on Apr 25, 2007 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Alou
By the way, Alou and Wills pretty much split leadoff duties while they were teammates.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/PIT/1967_bo.shtml
That website absolutely rocks.
by sisyphus on Apr 25, 2007 6:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

by 













